SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.” http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html

The Canadian Navy and the Mexican Marines already "helped" the U.S. in a domestic capacity during the first test of the NATO Rapid Response Team after Katrina hit. Are these soldiers required to swear to uphold and defend the Constitition of the U.S. and the respective states before they're allowed to provide miliary support for military actions against the American civilan population? Does that even matter to us anymore? And really, what difference does it make what language our protectors speak? I'm trying to decide if I'd rather be directed into a compoud or onto a bus by a BlackWater special forces operative or an enlisted Canadian foot soldier. Hmmm.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Here's a perfect example of why so few Americans know what communitarianism is. The dialectic between capitalism and communism is still a great way to keep Americans behind the times. The International communists merged in a perfect Hegelian synthesis with the Christian-Judaic capitalists over 20 years ago.

The patriotic "Christian right" loves to lead us back to focusing on the 1950s Cold War and the communist/socialist left so that 1) Opponents can be easily labeled and discounted as "red baiters" and "McCarthyists" and 2) Opponents will never address the 21st century laws and programs by their real names (which ensures they will never have the ability to stop it or challenge it in an American court of law).

Communitarianism is the perfect blend of all ideas and theories. It's the final stage of human social evolution as prescribed by the theorists who brought us every modern conflict, including capitalism versus communism. The left finds an easy target in the Christian Right (who often openly support the Zionist Radical Middle).

Charlotte Iserbyt knows what communitarianism is, but you'd never know that from her most recent article on regionalization and the NAU. Charlotte thinks we should all start calling commmunitarianism "communism."

The plans and structure for globalization is not called "communist law" in the academic or international legal community. It's called "communitarian law." Regionalization is emerging legislated under trade agreements that include the "Supremacy of Communitarian Law" clause. The EU Court is called the Communitarian Court of Justice. Hundreds of European and Latin American colleges offer Ph.D.s in Communitarian Law.

Barack Obamba and Hillary Clinton are openly identified in the American press as communitarian, not communist. But yeah okay, let's all start asking them about their "communist" beliefs so they can discount us as McCarthyists and minimalize any damage they might suffer by being asked REAL Qs.

I've had a lot of respect for Iserbyt since I beagn my research, and I've often tooted her horn in my articles, but come on Charlotte, who's deliberately dumbing down who?

Regionalism is communism no matter how you slice it. The sooner Americans get that unpleasant fact permanently entered into their brains, and process that information into appropriate action, the sooner we will be able to escape what Orwell described so well in his novel 1984

THE NORTH AMERICAN 'SOVIET' UNION

By Charlotte Iserbyt

February 27, 2007

There is one common thread running through all articles and speeches by elected officials, well-known writers, and commentators in opposition to the merging of the United States into a political and economic regional arrangement known as the North American Union. To my knowledge, not one of them has chosen to use the “C” word (communism) when warning Americans of the dangers of this unconstitutional merger about to be foisted upon us without proper hearings in Congress. Excellent speeches and articles are being given and written warning us of all sorts of bad things related to this merger, including the fact that we will lose our sovereignty, but we are not being told that all these bad things are necessary for the full implementation of The North American Soviet Union (communistic/regional system). Isn’t the “C” word the one and only word which might shock Americans out of their state of conditioned apathy, thereby bringing about citizen activism which might result in killing this “regional” monster?

Morris Zeitlin, a communist writer for the Communist Party’s Daily World said in an article entitled “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” November 8, 1975: “We (USA) have no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. Regional government and planning remain concepts our urban scholars and planners have long advocated in vain…In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…”

Of interest regarding Zeitlin’s comment about “the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…” is the following admission made by former President Gorbachev at the 2005 National School Board Association conference that “half the world’s population and two-thirds of Russia’s lives in poverty.”

The United States Government, at all levels, has since 1975 accepted wholeheartedly Zeitlin’s advice, to the extent that our country is, believe it or not, almost 100 percent socialist in its political, economic, social and environmental (sustainable development) policies. For documentation please read “Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like a Duck.”

The regionalization (consolidation) of the world is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed:

“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.” (Ed note: The third stage is taking place right now as we in the United States of America become part of a federal union, the North American Union, which will in the near future become part of a world union of socialist nations.)

Former President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.” If he refers to the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that he would refer to the North American Union (NAU) as the “New American Soviet,” since the NAU is modeled on the EU. Gorbachev also said in his speech to the Soviet Central Committee on November 2, 1987, published by Novosti Press Agency Publishing House:

“We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

How is it possible that if American citizens or United States officials involved in putting us under the North American Union were aware of Gorbachev’s statements, they would not be very concerned regarding our nation becoming part of a communist world? Have we forgotten the many hundreds of millions of innocent people tortured, starved, murdered and incarcerated by communist regimes around the world? Authorities say “over 20 million people suffered in purges under Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin -- and that more than 10 million died before Stalin's death in 1953. Some put the number even higher.” [Read]

Do we really believe the communists have changed or gone away?

United States government officials, elected and unelected, with enormous financial assistance from the tax-exempt foundations, have for many years been working to implement unconstitutional regional planning at the local, state, national and international level, all of this required for full implementation of a One World Socialist Government. For the 3000-page transcript of 1953 Congressional (Reece and Cox Committee) Hearings to Investigate the Tax-Exempt Foundations and for superb research on the history of regional government, go to americandeception.com and type the following into its search engine: Reece Committee, Don Bell Reports, Maureen Heaton, the Mantooth Report, and The Emerging North American Union.

One very important government official in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, Under Secretary of State George W. Ball, spelled out very clearly what the Insiders were planning for our nation in The New York Times, 1/24/88: “…If we could internationalize by using the United Nations in conjunction with the Soviet Union, because we now no longer have to fear in most cases a Soviet veto, then we could begin to transform the shape of the world and might get the UN back doing something useful. …Sooner or later we’re going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they’re not confined merely to the nation states. Start first on a regional, and ultimately you can move to a world, basis.” (emphasis added).

Has our education system so successfully conditioned and dumbed down Americans that they no longer are able to apply logic to the above quotes? Are they no longer capable of transferring that knowledge, processing it into new knowledge and conclusions which might help them understand and oppose the present destruction of our Constitutional Republic?

Since all regional groupings being set up around the world are based on the communistic Free Trade “redistribute the wealth” philosophy, why is it that the adjective “Communist” is never used when discussing GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA and the NAU? Those patriotic writers could at least describe those agreements as “Communism LITE,” couldn’t they?

For those Americans who recall the days of elected officials, not unelected, appointed task forces and “councils” (soviets, according to most dictionaries), running our towns, schools, counties, states, nation and world, recognizing this change in our form of government should not be too difficult.

However, for those younger Americans denied an education in American history and government due to the activities of the tax-exempt foundations, especially the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations, the loss of elected officials through regionalism does not seem to bother them. Go to americandeception.com and type into search engine “Kenny Hignite” and you will see a most astonishing six-page 1954 “Test on the United States Constitution” on which Hignite received a grade of 99 – “Excellent!” There is absolutely no way that Kenny Hignite, now 66 years old, having received such an excellent education on the U.S. Constitution in a public school in Central California in 1954, would not be questioning the present deliberate destruction of our representative form of government through the implementation of communistic regional government!

Those Americans under fifty years old, and too often those over 50 years old (!), will ask you “What’s wrong with members of the community or faceless state bureaucrats being appointed to assist our elected officials in their work which has become increasingly complicated?” The simple answer is “If you don’t approve of what those unelected officials are doing, you can’t get rid of them at the polls.”

Uneducated Americans will also ask you:

“What’s wrong with consolidation of school districts, services, the merging of individual school and town budgets to “save taxpayers money?” (Ed note: In Maine our Senate Education Committee is about to approve Governor Baldacci’s proposal to slash school districts by proposing 26 regional school units statewide with 26 superintendents, compared to the existing 152 superintendents and 290 school units!);

“What’s wrong with merging 16 towns under one county council as was recently proposed in Cumberland County, Maine, thereby eliminating representative government?”;

“What’s wrong with getting rid of local school boards and having our schools run by city Mayors, or contracting education out to private organizations connected with the corporations?”;

“What possible objection could you have to public school morals and values education even if those programs are forbidden to teach ‘absolute’ morals and values based on the Ten Commandments?”;

“What’s wrong with publicly-funded charter schools which have no elected school boards?”;

“What’s wrong with Cuban-style school-to-work job training replacing a K-12 liberal arts curriculum? Even if my child can’t read, I sure want him/her to be able to get a job.”;

“What’s wrong with public/private partnerships?”

“What’s wrong with the federal government mandating mental health screening for my child?”;

“What’s wrong with members of the community assisting the local police in monitoring citizen activities and/or the police handing out awards to citizens who do good deeds, as is the case with the Community-Oriented Policing System (COPS) in Maine?”;

“What’s wrong with putting the UN’s lifelong learning agenda, all community services (birth through death), under the umbrella of the school district? (Go to americandeception.com and type “Feld” into search engine for a remarkable research paper on the history of Community Education)

“What’s wrong with a National I.D. card reportedly designed by two Russian ex-KGB Chiefs?”;

“What’s wrong with students being required to perform community service in order to graduate?”;

“What’s wrong with dropping borders between states?” as is in the offing.

And, the subject of this article: “What’s wrong with regional government?” And many more “What’s Wrong With?” questions from good Americans who have, over many years, through no fault of their own, been deliberately dumbed down and didn’t receive the public education which required the likes of Kenny Hignite to know their Constitution and form of government.

How many Americans realize that almost all the programs mentioned in the above “What’s Wrong With” section have already been implemented in our schools, communities, and states and that they are based on communist/socialist collectivist philosophy? The planners are waiting only for the full implementation of the North American Union (final nail in coffin) which will allow them to write and approve, as was done in Europe, the North American Union’s Constitution (Communist Manifesto) which will include all the above “What’s Wrong With?” programs. That will be the infamous day when the U.S. Constitution is formally relegated to history’s trash bin. And, as with the EU Constitution, or the Communist Manifesto, the practice of Christianity will be outlawed… a thing of the past. All religions will be considered equal and inevitably superior to Christianity. Go to americandeception.com and type into search engine “Religion and Governance” an important position paper by Harlan Cleveland, notorious supporter of global government, long-time member of the internationalist Aspen Institute, and first U.S. Ambassador to the Common Market (1960), and Marc Luycx, a Belgian change agent bureaucrat. This paper was prepared by the Foreward Study Group of the European Commission and was undoubtedly used by those drafting the EU Constitution. It will give you a picture of the non-role of Christianity in world region constitutions.

Our elected officials in Congress, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, should not be immune to multi-million dollar lawsuits for injuries sustained by the citizens of this country. Is not the loss of our freedoms due to elected officials’ malpractice (lying to us in regard to putting us under the communistic regional North American Union and not holding hearings on the subject) even more important than the death of one patient due to a doctor’s malpractice, the scalding of a woman who spilled her “too-hot” coffee at a McDonald’s takeout, or the death from cancer of a woman who smoked too many cigarettes? How can we ignore the fact that 651,008 Americans have died in battle to protect and defend the constitutional freedoms which will vanish under this new international regional arrangement? Is there really no penalty to be exacted of these highly-paid Congressional traitors other than voting them out of office, which it seems is impossible to do due to both political parties having the same agenda, controlled media, manipulated political conventions, and election fraud?

Americans have been conditioned to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, since the days of McCarthyism and the phony fall of communism, mention the “C” word. The word must, as George Orwell might have said, be removed from the dictionaries of all languages, especially English. Otherwise, we might wise up and tackle this treason with all our might and brains since we surely don't want our children and grandchildren living under any “ism” form of government, much less “communism.” The Insiders know that “communism” is the one and only word that must be banished from use. They are not concerned over excellent anti-North American Union rantings and ravings as long as the “C” word is NOT used.

The Insiders, most if not all of whom are corporate communists, have no fear of the coming totalitarian system since they have been assured they will be sitting in the catbird seat, having eliminated all economic competition and self-government (elected officials), and will have the world as their playground. The majority of the world’s population, the Insiders’ “human resources”, will be their highly trained and conditioned serfs, lifelong.

One might ask, how can this be? It is a well-known and documented fact that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and the corporate communists and our government have been supporting the communist regime in Russia since 1917. Extensive exchange agreements covering political, municipal, cultural, economic, legal, law enforcement, education, science, sports, medicine, etc. have been signed since 1958 between the USSR and the USA, including of special importance the 1985 education agreements signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev which merged our two education systems and caused to be implemented the Soviet polytechnical work force/job quota system and the Pavlovian outcomes-based method of conditioning/training. Go to americandeception.com for full text of “Agreement between U.S.A. and USSR.”

Regionalism is communism no matter how you slice it. The sooner Americans get that unpleasant fact permanently entered into their brains, and process that information into appropriate action, the sooner we will be able to escape what Orwell described so well in his novel 1984:

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face--forever...and remember, that is forever."

Forward this article to your friends and to your elected officials at the local, state, and national level. Of equal importance restore the "C" word to your vocabulary and use it often.

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.

Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

I'm updating the ACL Articles page and decided to include a link to Dave Hodges work at Freedoms Phoenix as a plagiarizer. So I went back to Hodges website and scrolled through his list of published work and found the interview he did with Daneen Peterson on the NAU. Professor Peterson bills herself as an expert on the NAU and regionalization and harmonization but insists Americans are too stupid and afraid to learn the REAL terms for the NAU agreement.Daneen wrote me a year and a half ago when I first contacted her, claiming she had read "all" my work and planned to include communitarianism in her work sometime soon. I found her claim to have read "all" my work to be somewhat unbelievable but chose to ignore that as I was very encouraged by her promise. Since then, I have watched her rise to the front of the antiNAU pack; Lisa Long and many other "angels of truth" have taken to heralding her "great work."

Daneen Peterson writes about every aspect of communitarian law except communitarian law. She's not alone in her quest for "truth." Many other prominet expert researchers who study globalization do not include the actual global government system in their work. Why? This has never made any sense to me, but it's beginning to.

I finally learned of Daneen Peterson's background from Hodges. Here's the bio he has on her:

"Dr. Peterson is a former professor at both Temple and Jefferson Universities in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , where she taught behavioral science research methodology and statistics. After leaving academia, she created and directed the first Department of Research and Program Evaluation for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America's National Office in Philadelphia , PA , where she worked with some 512 agencies in all fifty states."http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=026528

Here's a list of Big Brothers/Big Sisters Philadephia government partners:

The following government partners support our mission with necessary grants and fundamental policy initiatives:

Now I think I get it. The Faith Based and Community Initiatives are communitarian programs that build private-public partnerships that will eliminate constitutionally guaranteed rights. Freedom Corps is a volunteer program introduced by the Communitarian Network founder Amitai Etzioni (the one that President Bush declared in 2002: all Americans should volunteer 4000 hours or 2 years to help rebuild community). The community database of American's private information was created by HUD and implemented by DHHS. Daneen Peterson built her entire faith based organization on communitarian grants.

What is Daneen's expert background in behavioral science research methodology and statistics? A search return for that exact phrase brings us to scoiosite.net, a global reseach project. Their famous sociologists list includes the founder of the Communitarian Network, Dr. Amitai Etzioni. http://www.sociosite.net/topics/sociologists.php#ETZIONI

How well does Dr. Daneen Peterson know Dr. Amitai Etzioni? Is she aware of their sociological connection? Etzioni was president of the ASA in 1995. Was she a member? Is she familiar with Etzioni's socio-economics co-founder, former USSR President and Global Green founder Mikhail Gorbachev? Was she ever a member of SASE?

I know I said I wouldn't waste any time researching disinformation agents, like Sean I too was sure it was a diversion from my real work. But is it? If there is any connection between leading American "patriots" and the Communitarian Network doesn't that fall into my topic areas?

Monday, February 25, 2008

I'm doing some quick research trying to find the source for a City data site that claims the employment rates are going to raise 12% here in the next 3 years. There's no industry to speak of here, the farms are mostly all family owned. Where are these new jobs going to come from? My guess is Princess Tours has plans to expand their operations into the Wrangells and build a repeat of what they accomplished in Denali.

McKinley Village is their "new" town outside Healy, Alaska. Only open in the summer, it hosts hundreds of thousands of visitors in giant hotels. Main street on the Parks Highway is like an Alaskan Disneyland facade with cute little retail cabins and raised wooden walkways. The majority of the employees are young Europeans and outsiders who work long hours for low wages, live in compounds owned by Princess and drink like there's no tomorrow. These operations contribute little to the local economy, are gaining more land by the minutes, and the Park's officials control ALL new local development (I met the Park Director's secretary in Cantwell and she filled me in on the way political decisions are made in Denali Park).

There is already a 200 acre Princess Hotel near Copper Center on the Richardson Hwy. I've seen plans that call the roads between here and Denali Park "adventure corridors." While flagging on the Edgerton last summer I heard more than one visitor exclaim shock! at seeing so many people out here because they were told it's a wilderness.

Now I know this is old news for most outside Americans since they've been stealing land for the parks for a long time down there. But they haven't won all of Alaska yet, there's still a strong local presense that won't just move away so the tourists can see wild animals on the road between here and Denali. And I don't imagine it will matter much to people here that French and German academics have been aware of plans to regionalize us and create buffer zones here since at least 1992.

Notice this is the first International Park, as it crosses the border with Canada and includes Kluane, Yukon Territory. That's actually gorgeous country and I always stopped there whenever I drove the Alcan Highway, so on a personal level I don't mind being lumped in with those hardy folks. But this is what regionalization (NAU) is designed to do, and it's ALL established under the supremacy of communitarian law.

Development in this region will be conducted as all communitarian development is.. by tiny committees "protecting" it. Maybe we need to start our own community development committee so that when the changes come we remain the rulers of our region.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Poor Osa dog knew it. We suspected it might have been wolves too since there have been several incidents of wolves killing people's dogs this winter. One night we could hear this weird noise perfectly, right outside the tarp walls. I grabbed the flashlight and Nord got the rifle and we went out to chase it away. I followed the erie sound, and when I accidentally shined the light right in its eyes I turned and ran away, right over Nordica. As with all Alaskan stories, Nordica has her own version of this event. :)

Dead gertee roof and exterior walls.

The mold happened under the icicles. Guess I should have knocked them all off when it was still 40 below. It also would have helped if I'd have put the coated side on the outside walls. All in all though gertee did a fine job of withstanding the bitter cold and while we have to change our wall covers with the seasons, the wood frame is in perfect condition with zero problems. When the wind blows the walls don't even move, only the roof tarps flap.

Our sincerest thanks to the wonderful people who responded to our need for a new roof cover! You keep the ACL alive!

Rowan Williams, Theocon

by Andrew Sullivan09 Feb 2008 09:12 am

"The full text of his speech defending religiously-based, communitarian law against the secular liberal state can be read here. It strikes me as the point at which Christianists and Islamists intersect. Although the lovely English term "a complete wally" seems equally appropriate. Ruth Gledhill sees the theocon overlap:

A few days ago, the Archbishop argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law - as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

The most persuasive half-defense of Williams can be read here. I don't think it's possible to defend a kinder, gentler sharia against the secular rule of law. But then I'm a secularist."

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

One of my neighbors gifted me a copy of "Blackwater" by Jeremy Scahill. Well written and very well referenced, this book is a great resource for the history and rise to power of private security forces. I learned a lot about the details; now I understand why the War on Terror is so costly and where all the divereted emergency funds are going, and where some of the trillions "missing" from the Pentagon in 2001 went.

Blackwater is only one the many companies training local law enforcement, and this book barely mentions that "Israel is the Harvard of Anti Terrorism." Scahill goes into great detail of the force made up of death squads from El Salvador, South Africa and Chile, but the Israelis get one little paragraph. There's very little about all the joint U.S.--U.S.S.R. police exercises, except the parts telling us that Blackwater trains officers and forces from countries around the world. And the connection to global Community Policing is completely avoided.

It's a good lesson on the power of ommision. Scahill's Hegelian slant is almost too easy to identify. Right wing, Christian, Religious fundamentalists and the Bush administration are the identified problem; communitarians like Obama, Kucinich and even Hillary are portrayed as heroes valiantly trying to stop the advancement of mercenary "justice."

In my layman's opinion, both the left and the right are working toward the same end. Each player has a scripted role to play for us that advances their bosses' ultimate communitarian agenda. We the Marxist ignorant masses are supposed to get so caught up in the phony Hegelian dialectical arguments that we never SEE the emerging final synthesis coming out of all these dialectics, at least not until we are fully prepared to accept it as the best and only possible solution. It's a spiritual revelation only the "enlightened" are able to see. Uh huh.

On page 380 Kucinich is described as "incredulous" when questioning Shay Assad about DoD's preparations for prosecution of mercenaries charged with killing civilans. Assad said "Sir, I can't answer that question," and according to Scahill, Kucinich shot back, "Think about what that means. These private contractors can get away with murder."

Two months before the 9/11 attacks Kucinich proposed a communitarian "solution" to violence - non-violence (which as my readers may suspect leads to-- some selected-violence):

"On April 8, 2003, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced H.R. 1673 (first introduced July 11, 2001) in the U.S. House of Representatives—legislation that would create a Cabinet-level Department of Peace dedicated to peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution at both domestic and international levels. The Department of Peace would serve to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in our society, and help to create the conditions for a more peaceful world. http://www.hagelin.org/government/index.html

"The IPOA Code, which all member companies are required to sign, comits its member to "agree to follow all rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law that are applicable as well as all relevant internal protocols and conventions.""

I wonder why Scahill never found it of any neccessity to explain to us ignorant readers what international humanitarian law and human rights means. Why doesn't the IAPTC agree to follow the rules established by the U.S. Constitution or any of the the individual state constitutions?

"International humanitarian law (IHL)- Section explaining international humanitarian law (IHL), its role in the protection of victims of war and its relationship with the work of the ICRC. The main treaties are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols"http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl

ICRC has lists of Implementing Laws and Regulations by State. It includes the U.S. Constitution and various U.S. Codes. Okay... I'll try to figure out how that's possible.

"This article considers several explanations for the international human rights movement's sudden heightened attention to rule of law.

The human rights movement has increasingly encountered conceptual, normative and political challenges. Perhaps, as de Mello suggested, rule of law will be a "fruitful principle to guide us toward agreement and results," and "a touchstone for us in spreading the culture of human rights."

We still live in a world where widespread human rights violations are the norm rather than the exception. Rule of law is seen as directly integral to the implementation of rights.

Why isn't national law cited in the international association of peacekeepers mission? Because it really doesn't matter anymore. But it will, UN law is gaining ground again, and imagine what precedents can be set if the left succeeds in bringing the right before the international court.

Funny how both sides claim the same objective. Maybe they really do mean what they say. The traditional lines are being blurred. We simply can't rebuild a communitarian world with impediments like the U.S. Bill of Rights getting in the way of peacekeeping operations, now can we? And the bottom line is BOTH "sides" want the same result, a lovely new *civil society.

Here's the examples of the two sides. The first one comes from the the military/official "right," the second one is the official "left/middle". Pick one... there are no other choices.

"STABILITY OPERATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION

Seeking Interagency Solutions to Evolving Crises

The roles of today's military, government and international organizations increasingly intersect across a range of scenarios from crisis prevention and humanitarian support to consequence management and state intervention. As traditional lines blur, new relationships must be forged to ensure operational success. Military and civilian agencies together with nongovernmental organizations must transcend the institutional barriers and stereotypes that prevent meaningful coordination of effort. Advancement of these partnerships requires honest interagency dialogue, coupling foreign and domestic military and civilian agencies. Interagency solutions will define the future of stability operations and reconstruction. The increase in multilateral intervention necessitates the reassessment of the complex relationships between organizations. As security concerns for nongovernmental organizations intensify and the military further engages in stability operations and reconstruction, these organizations will be forced to work together. The development of mutually supportive relationships will enhance the effectiveness of the agencies and organizations providing support, improving the quality of support to those in need.

"The overarching strategy aims to enhance global and domestic security by building and nurturing strong civil society, thereby establishing an environment of healthy and vibrant communities where human needs can be met as the rule rather than the exception. To accomplish this, we aim to create a "network of capacity" that links human and community needs to organizations that can contribute to the strengthening of civil society. The focus will be on building the connections among the broad spectrum of organizations that have peacebuilding as a common intention... and as we strengthen civil society, we will simultaneously enhance our national and global security.

Within this strategy, the role of The Peace Alliance/Department of Peace will be the "systems architect" and facilitator to establish a self-organizing network of capabilities (nonviolent conflict resolution, micro-finance, business, environmental stewardship, truth and justice, women and children's rights, healthcare rights, etc.) focused on peacebuilding by strengthening the capacity for civil society throughout the world. The idea is that, while virtually all the "raw" capabilities exist to do this, the management challenge is how do we orchestrate various organizations (NGOs, businesses, educational institutions, government agencies, military, police, healthcare, etc.) to holistically come together, share a common vision, work as a team, and build the capacity for a strong and vibrant civil society, while respecting diverse cultural perspectives.

An intended consequence for this strategy will be that the networks we help create will become part of the very infrastructure for a global culture of peace. The process will be designed to help fulfill Gandhi's profound wish for humanity to "become the change you wish to see in the world"

Instead of our political leadership asking, in our quest for national security, "How can we arm ourselves and defeat our adversaries... like we did during the Cold War?", we now have the opportunity to ask ourselves: "How can we collaborate with the global community to create, by intentional design, a world where humanity thrives" The answers to these two questions may very well be the difference between a fearful society in decline and a hopeful energetic society that can help lead this world out of darkness.

The Peace Alliance can start playing this role now; we are well positioned to do this and we are earning the reputation of being non-partisan, inclusive, and focused on convening all parties who are interested in peacebuilding in its broadest context. We can be a shining beacon of how humanity can work peacefully and constructively together to create a culture of peace; we will strive for what we want, not what we are against. Our means become our desired ends."

*Civil Society is a phrase introduced by Jacobin freemasons to "change" the course of the French Revolution; the words actually mean mob rule and peace & justice via the guillotine. It gets pertty amazing to recognize so much of their freemason/theosophical and Fabian language... "lead the world out of darkness" is beyond obvious. Can you see any others?

What happens when any company, corporation, group or tribe can estabish its own "enforcement" policies and hire its own special forces to protect the human rights of the inhabitants? Does this ideology explain the blatant actions by members of the Ahtna Indian Tribe on the banks of the Copper River (and on other "Indian lands" across the U.S.)?

If you were a communitarian and understood the need for violent conflicts to effect radical change in the U.S.A., would you consider this as one possible violent conflict area? The Mexican border disputes helped establish Blackwater as a domestic mercenary force. They were on the ground after Katrina hit, before anyone else (including the Mexican Marines). They had tons of weapons but there wasn't any room for food or water for the victims. And according to Scahill, Blackwater soldiers were then hired by the Dept of Homeland Security to protect FEMA.

So I have to wonder again now... what happened to all those N.O. city policemen and the children who went missing during the hurricane "emergency." Are there still Americans living under the control of the FEMA camps? I need to do some serious follow-up to my Katrina articles.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Do Humanitarian/Human Rights also mean Communitarian/Community Rights? One of the biggest obstacles to following the Communitarian's movement is the numerous terms used to describe the exact same things. To this day most average Americans have never heard of the word communitarian. Is it a "real" term used by officials in the U.S. government?

Does communitarianism mean "the devolution of power to groups and the seizing of authority from the nation-state by communities"?

The following quotes may help answer that question:

Colin Powell used the word "communitarian" five times during a short interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS Face the Nation December 17, 2006. Schieffer never once uses the word in his responses; one would have to assume he's already very familiar with the term.

Mr. POWELL: The number one priority has to be working with the Iraqigovernment and their strategy, provide security for the people of Baghdad,initially--that's the center of gravity. But I think, ultimately, with ourhelp, has to be done by the Iraqis. They're the ones who have to solve thisinternecine civil war humanitarian--communitarian conflict that they'rein--communitarian.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let--let's--let's--you've talked about it, and as I--I takeit, you--you think that the 160,000 troops are not going to be any moresuccessful than 140,000 have at this point.

Communitarian guru Amitai Etzioni in an abstract explaining a neo-communitarian approach to international relations- rights and the good in the Human Rights Review in Volume 7, July 2006:

Amitai Etzioni

"Abstract New communitarianism is important even to those who care little about academic disputes. A greatly altered communitarian position lays the foundation for an international legal framework that is more comprehensive than the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is more attentive to beliefs in the East, and enhances the ability of nations that adhere to different values to find common ground on policies ranging from humanitarian interventions to fighting terrorist groups. The article first examines criticisms leveled against communitarianism and then highlights the ways a neo-communitarian approach has overcome these criticisms. The question of under what circumstances one nation may interfere in the internal affairs of another, especially to advance human rights, using means as different as cross cultural moral judgments to armed humanitarian interventions, serves as a litmus test for distinguishing the new from the old communitarian approach."

"4.2 Are peace operations un-American?Some advocates of selective engagement have targeted humanitarian and peace operations as prime candidates for triage. From an orthodox Realist perspective the cost of pursuing humanitarian or communitarian goals may easily outweigh their service to manifest national interests. Certainly the material benefit to national interests is seldom direct. The beneficial effects of stemming genocide, relieving refugee crises, or forestalling war are as diffuse as the negative consequences of doing nothing."

"In fact, the only secularism which survives such a crisis is one which has a strong humanitarian and communitarian component. But the more humanitarian and communitarian it becomes, the more it begins to resemble dharma."

"Vision: Sustain humanitarian and communitarian values of respect for each other, dignity, harmonious living with nature, work together for a self reliant community, continue to work collectively, to attain self sufficiency and just, gender equal, sustainable and ecologically sound civil society.

"#1 Goal:Community Development Education of the Weaker section to create in them an awareness for Social health and economic development through a process of Community organisation."

"In this timely and provocative book, Professor Etzioni offers a rich compendium of insights and ideas. His vision of a potential East-West synthesis is particularly compelling. Better still, he is not afraid to tackle the very real challenge of creating genuine institutions to govern a potential global polity. A valuable read for anyone interested in the future of global governance."

"2. Another questioner sought to probe the rationale behind the right to protect. The liberal ideas underlying the right to protect are in contrast to the communitarian ideas behind the prohibition on genocide, so these ideas may at some level be in conflict. The focus on genocide may be in part a matter of convenience, given the existing force of the anti-genocide regime."

Technology plays even less of a role in explaining the second destabilizing feature of our world: the quest for values, rooted in ethnology, regionalism, religion, and other fundamentalisms.[5] This quest generates what Samuel Huntington termed "the clash of civilizations."[6] The quest for values, while virtuous in many dimensions, also tends to attack liberal values and supplant state power, civics, and citizenship. "The faith of the Enlightenment in the inevitable triumph of human reason and liberty," wrote Almond and Verba in The Civic Culture, "has been twice shaken in recent decades."[7] This "faith" in the reason and science of the Enlightenment is under broad attack again, not by fascists and communists this time, but by intellectuals, ranging from fundamentalist Islamic mullahs to liberals such as Vaclav Havel and conservatives such as William Bennett. Fewer every day seem prepared to make Descartes' declaration that identity depends solely on pure reason. Fascism and communism challenged the "inevitability of democracy" in this century; challenges in the next century will be based on values, not ideologies.

But if communitarianism (the devolution of power to groups and the seizing of authority from the nation-state by communities) seems good for established democracies, those same democracies seem unwilling to grant that such actions may be good for ethnic groups and tribal enclaves, for Yugoslavia or Chechnya. "We should stop touting order imposed from the center for others," wrote William Safire recently, "even as we come to reject that course for ourselves. On the contrary, we should encourage others to go with the flow of centrifugal political forces all over the world."[8] Many would reject Safire's "go with the flow" perspective, seeing that communitarianism's ideals conflict with the core democratic political precepts which sharply limit the claims of state, government, and community on the individual. There are no assurances that all communities will share the same values, that different groups will concur on moralities and responsibilities, that all citizens will obey the same authorities. Wrote French journalist Jean Daniel, "America is wondering if its citizens have less in common than they have differences. . . . [T]hey all come together not under the banner of assimilation or oneness, but of coexistence . . . . This tendency toward `communitarianism' is as alarming for Europe as it is for the United States. We can see in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia where this kind of convulsion leads."[9]

Western nations may continue to defend liberal political values (human rights, democratic processes, free speech), even as their citizens shift to more communitarian motives for political actions (community rights, moral processes, socially conscious speech), devolve more political power to communities, and find their armies becoming more exclusive enclaves of a warrior spirit. Such spirit stands good stead for traditional offensive and defensive military missions. It is less clear, though, how well "warriors" will perform in the "operations other than war" that represent much of the future work of Western military forces. If the citizenry question the political foundations of these operations, their military execution will become that much more difficult to sustain, regardless of the depth of warrior spirit or professionalism in the armed forces. And pitted against these Western defenders of liberal political values (perhaps only feebly supported by communitarian voters) will be the warriors of nations and ethnic groups that implacably hold tribal and fundamental values. OOTW seem far better served by a professional ethic than by a warrior spirit.

Donate Here!

About Me

2020 / TACM

Available NOW in PDF eBook

Translate

Search This Blog

I'm Niki Raapana, an independent researcher, co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) with Nordica Friedrich, co- author of 2020: Our Common Destiny and co-author of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.